Today’s New Reason To Believe

Previously Posted on May 7th, 2008 by Jeff Zweerink

As scientists gain understanding of the universe of the details of the universe’s features, their knowledge bodes well for the biblically consistent class of big bang models. In early March, the WMAP science team released their latest results derived from five years of data. A few weeks ago, I discussed how WMAP continues to produce new scientific results and highlighted the discovery of an important neutrino component of the early universe.

Here are the best results from WMAP:

1. The age of the universe: t_o = 13.73 ± 0.12 billion years.
2. Dark energy density: Ω_Λ = 72.1 ± 1.5%
3. Dark matter density: Ω_dm = 23.3 ± 1.3%
4. Baryonic (or normal) matter density: Ω_b = 4.62 ± 0.15%
5. Curvature of the universe: -0.0175 < Ω_k < 0.0085
6. Hubble constant: H_o = 70.1 ± 1.3 km/s/Mpc
7. Spectral index of CMB fluctuations: n_s = 0.960 (+ 0.014, - 0.013)

This last feature (number 7) impacts cosmological models in two important ways. First, any model without an inflationary period in the early universe, would have required a value of n_s equal to one in order to produce the galaxies and clusters of galaxies seen by astronomers today. Thus, a measured value of n_s different from one confirms a generic prediction of all inflationary models. Second and more importantly, a value less than one begins to rule out large classes of inflationary models including Andre Linde’s chaotic inflation model.

An interesting analogy arises when looking at the history of cosmologies based on general relativity. When Einstein first proposed the theory of general relativity (GR), it generically predicted an expanding or contracting cosmos. Although Einstein developed a static cosmology based on GR, Edwin Hubble’s measurement of the expansion falsified this model and led to the development of big bang, steady-state, and oscillating cosmologies. Eventually, astronomical observations ruled out all but big bang models. Consequently, cosmologists developed many variations of big bang models.

I wanted to point out how scientific testing has verified those models consistent with the biblical description of the universe (the big bang models) and falsified those which were inconsistent (steady-state and oscillating models). Therefore, RTB’s creation model rests on firm scientific ground in regards to the formation and development of the universe.

Now, all viable big bang models included an inflationary epoch. Past and future observations will continue to test various inflationary descriptions of the universe. RTB expects these tests to falsify those versions of inflation which contradict the biblical description and confirm some of the versions which support the biblical description.

Previously Posted on September 9th, 2008 by Kenneth Richard Samples

I have always taken my good memory for granted. Remembering names, dates, and facts has always been easy for me, particularly when it comes to history, philosophy, and sports. I have always wanted to be a contestant on such shows as Jeopardy! or Who Wants to Be a Millionaire? If I got a difficult science question, I could simply phone my friend Hugh Ross!

However, in the last couple of years I have noticed that I have to work harder to keep my memory sharp. Hitting the half-century mark I am becoming more aware of the need to flex my cognitive faculties regularly and to pay greater heed to things like diet, exercise, and dealing effectively with stress.

It was painful for me to watch my father’s memory fade in the last few years of his life. In talking with him about his World War II experiences he struggled to remember more and more of the details.

I recently watched a television program on PBS entitled “Living Better, Longer” hosted by UCLA’s aging and memory expert, Dr. Gary Small. Small did a great job of conveying practical ways to confront the challenges posed by an aging brain and mind.

One of the things he discussed has direct apologetic implications. According to Small, optimists live longer than pessimists. So to develop a more positive outlook on life he recommends that people consider adopting some form of spirituality. Spirituality could include some form of meditation and/or prayer. However, he also specifically mentioned “belief in God.” According to Small, there are scientific studies:

Showing that belief in God is associated with better health outcomes in some situations.

He also indicated that belief in God has been linked to longer life expectancy. In fact, one study done a few years ago indicated that:

People who attend a house of worship one day a week actually had a seven year longer life expectancy.

The results of these studies appear to conflict with the position of naturalistic evolution (which is atheistic in belief). How so?

Assume the position of naturalistic evolution:

1. Life began on this planet purely naturalistically (no God or gods exist).

2. Evolution is the mechanism that explains the development of complex life.

3. Evolution is driven according to the survivability of a species.

4. Evolution is responsible for people’s belief in God (an evolutionary defect according to atheist Richard Dawkins).

5. Belief in God (though in reality a false belief, and even pernicious in nature according to Dawkins) nevertheless promotes survivability (or at least a longer life span).

Conclusion: False beliefs may at times promote the survivability of a species more than true beliefs.

Problem: If evolution can cause a person to believe that which is false in order to promote survivability, then how can a person trust that evolution will give true beliefs about the world? And if evolution can’t guarantee true beliefs in a person’s mind, then how does one know that one’s belief in evolution is a true belief about the world?

Distinguished Christian philosopher Alvin Plantinga has argued similarly that unguided evolution serves as a defeater for the worldview of naturalism.

Most atheistic naturalists that I have talked with or read say they embrace their particular worldview because their secular perspective more closely matches with reality. But given their commitment to naturalistic evolution, how can they ever be sure that their beliefs about reality are actually true?

For more on the study of evolutionary naturalism, see chapter 12 of my book A World of Difference: Putting Christian Truth-Claims to the Worldview Test.

Previously Posted on October 22nd, 2007 by Hugh Ross, Ph.D

One of the cornerstone doctrines of the Christian faith is that humans alone among all life-forms on Earth are created in the image of God. Part of this image entails that humans are spiritual beings uniquely endowed with the physical apparatus to engage in spiritual activity. According to the Bible, this image of God did not evolve within the human species. It appeared fully established and fully functional when God created the first human male and female.

Given how extensively and specifically the Bible describes humanity’s image of God (for example, Genesis 1:26-27; 9:6; James 3:9), it should not be difficult to develop scientific tests to confirm or refute the doctrine. However, little research effort has been devoted to putting the image of God to any kind of scientific test because much of the biological research community has been entrenched in Darwinism. That view holds that humans have evolved naturally from ape-like ancestors and that humanity’s mental capabilities differ from the animals’ only by degree and not by kind.

A team of European and American anthropologists unwittingly provided dramatic evidence for the Bible’s image of God doctrine. The evidence arose out of a comparative study they performed on the mental capabilities of adult orangutans and chimpanzees with human children aged just 2.5 years.¹ In selecting children aged 2.5 years the team eliminated any possible benefit from education or literacy from the human test subjects.

The researchers discovered that the human toddlers manifested no significant advantage over the adult apes in their ability to learn from their physical environment. However, their capacity to share and gain knowledge, understanding, and comprehension from their social interactions was far superior to anything manifested by either adult chimpanzees or adult orangutans. As the researchers put it, “Humans are not just social but ‘ultra-social.’”²

Without an extraordinary capability of interacting, communicating, and learning from social interactions no spiritual activity would be possible. The fact that even the most intelligent non-human animals lack the social interaction capability necessary to support spiritual activity while even toddler humans do provides evidence for the biblical doctrine that humans alone among all life on Earth are spiritual creatures.

The lead authors of the research team work for the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology and in the title of their paper they state, “Humans Have Evolved Specialized Skills of Social Cognition.” However, nowhere in their paper do they provide any evidence that present-day humans manifest a higher social interaction capability than do the earliest humans. Nor do they show that the hominids that preceded human beings (Homo sapiens sapiens) demonstrated a level of social interaction capability adequate to support spiritual activity.

In fact, archeological evidence strongly supports the conclusion that the first humans were just as capable of practicing spiritual activity as are humans today. Thus, the biblical doctrine that the first humans possessed a fully functional capacity to engage in spiritual activity has gained scientific support.

1. Esther Herrmann et al., “Humans Have Evolved Specialized Skills of Social Cognition: The Cultural Intelligence Hypothesis,” Science 317 (September 7, 2007): 1360-66.

2. Herrmann et al., 1360.